OG 13 第33逻辑 有争议吗？

tucaozhuanyong

33. Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?
Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small
pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the
strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal
has recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.
This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since
(A) many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years
(B) for satellites that have ceased to function, repairingthem while they are in orbit would be prohibitively
expensive
(0 there are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose
(D) the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use
telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth
(E) a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that
would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible‘
答案是E
我的问题是：“Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small
pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the
strong reflections they produce.”文章的这句话说，大卫星的数量比小碎片少，但是大卫星对电视的影响要远远超过小碎片。所以，结论是，如果只能在大卫星和小碎片之间做一个选择，那么要选择小碎片吗？
所以，把大卫星炸成小碎片是好的。
E说，小碎片太多会电视信号有影响。
但是小碎片的影响不是要好于大卫星吗？
所以，E是有问题的，不完整这段话的逻辑。
大家意见如何？

naoyixue

结论不是要在大卫星和小碎片中作选择，结论是去除那些由于不能用的卫星而造成的干扰只有通过要炸掉那些不能用的大卫星。这里是去除特定的干扰。E只是说了通过炸掉去除特定干扰而产生的负面作用会远远大于他的好处。

tucaozhuanyong

那请问~E给出的理由是不是正好和““Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the
strong reflections they produce.” 表达的意思是相反的呢？

lukrenee

...
炸了卫星才产生a greatly increased number of small particles～～

tucaozhuanyong

对啊~那就是说还是不要炸的好~那不正好和E相反了吗？

lukrenee

题干中的proposal是炸卫星，问选项中哪项成立，则这个Proposal就是ill conceived。
只要E成立，则这个proposal就ill conceived。

tucaozhuanyong

我还是不明白的是~~~ a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that
would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible~~E只是说“ a greatly increased number of small particles ”能够“ make certain valuable telescope observations impossible ”~但是没说这种“ make certain valuable telescope observations impossible ”比原本的大卫星更严重啊？

lycorisss

这道题再问个选项D，D怎么错的呀？og 上对D的解释也看不明白~
This is not a cogent reason for thinking the proposal to be ill conceived .Even if the proposal would not eminate all interference wih groung based telescopes ,it might still greatly reduce interference .

wyc1014

炸掉卫星同样有影响，所以ill conceived

gar_bbbbb

lycorisss 发表于 2013-2-17 15:15
这道题再问个选项D，D怎么错的呀？og 上对D的解释也看不明白~This is not a cogent reason for thinking th ...

个人的想法：题目的proposal说的是炸掉卫星。这个选项提供了另一个方案。题目叫你只能关注炸掉卫星这个，其他的方法都是out of scope。